DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 12/26/2025.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 12/31/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There appears to be a typographical error where the word “of” may be missing between the word “entity” and “the” in the following limitation: “an intervention for a particular unit of the connected building equipment associated with a first entity the plurality of customer entities…” (Emphasis added by the Examiner).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There appears to be a typographical error where the word “the” may be missing between the word “with” and “second” in the following limitation: “…a portion of the performance data associated with second entity with the first entity.” (Emphasis added by the Examiner).
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument filed 12/26/2025 in reference to the objection in the previous office action directed to the title of the invention not being descriptive, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s position that the title is descriptive. Nonetheless, the Examiner reminds Applicant that in the event that the instant Application were to move into condition for allowance, the Examiner is afforded the discretion of changing the title if a satisfactory title is not supplied by the Applicant (see MPEP 606.01). As such, the Examiner notes that if Applicant would like to provide any input regarding a more descriptive title, then Applicant should do so prior to the application potentially moving into allowance.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/26/2025 regarding claim 1, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejections based on a newly cited reference(s) follow.
Applicant's arguments filed12/26/2025 with regards to claim 13 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main argument appears to be primarily focused on that the applied prior art does not teach “different entities of a plurality of entities.” (see, pgs. 9-10, Args.)
In support of said argument Applicant states:
PNG
media_image1.png
626
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is giving more weight to the claim language than it merits, for at least three reasons. First, the phrase “a plurality of customer entities” can have the interpretation that there is a plurality of entities of a customer. That is to say, the interpretation of a “plurality” in the claims can be made to be in reference to the “entities,” not the “customer” itself.
The term “entity,” under its plain meaning is something that exists as a particular and discrete unit. The claim does not clarify whether the “entity” is in reference to an entity being a building or a customer/organization. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and under the plain meaning of the term “entity,” an individual building can be interpreted as being an entity, as each building is a discrete and separate unit from other buildings geographically separated. While the instant specification may insinuate that an entity under exemplary aspects may be different organizations, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In Pelsk,i a plurality of buildings across the world can be monitored and managed (see Fig. 7, Fig. 9, P69, p62, P37, Pelski), and even if owned by the same “customer,” are a plurality of different entities of a customer (i.e. a plurality of different customer entities). As such, the claim language is met, and the rejection is maintained.
Second, even if a narrow or amended clarification of the instant claims were to be made to refer to a plurality of “customers” for which a plurality of buildings are monitored and managed, such limitation would not be afforded patentable weight as it encompasses intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see MPEP 2103(I)C). Ownership merely states the intended entity use, and such a limitation does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, which is required in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim ,
Third, Pelski discloses a system that is able to monitor and manage a plurality of buildings across the world, and which offers its system’s customer access to the monitoring and management (see Fig. 7, Fig. 9, P69, p62, P37, Pelski). The nature of the “customer” for Pelski’s system is not explicitly limited or required to be the owner of each specific building. That is to say, the customer of Pelski can be a management company with its own customers who are the individual building owners. In this example, the individual owners of the buildings would still comprise different “entities.” This example, also highlights the intended use aspect of the limitation, and why patentable weight is questionable for such limitation.
For all these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2020/0152047 to Pelski (hereinafter Pelski), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2019/0235455 to Michals et al., (hereinafter Michals), and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2015/0370231 to Nakayama (hereinafter Makayama).
Regarding claim 1, Pelski teaches a system comprising: one or more processors (Processors, see p4, Pelski); and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
obtaining performance data from a fleet of connected building equipment associated with a plurality of customer entities and located across a plurality of geographically distributed building sites (Data (e.g. health, status, etc.) from communicatively networked assets (i.e. fleet of assets) of buildings at geographical locations for entities such as schools, hospitals, etc., is indicative of performance, see 62, 69, p4, p37,42, 76, 53, 51, 74, 41, Pelski);
tagging the performance data with categorizations associating subsets of the performance data with different equipment models, different locations, and different entities of the plurality of customer entities (Device data indicative of performance (e.g. status, health, etc.,) is associated (tagged) with categories for different assets, locations, and entities (e.g., a specified building), see Fig. 9, Fig. 8, 76-77, 57, Pelski);
generating, based on the categorizations, a dashboard comprising visualizations of the performance data (Visualization of asset data indicative of performance, see Fig. 9, Fig. 8, 76-77, 57, Pelski);
identifying an intervention for a particular unit of the connected building equipment associated with an entity the plurality of customer entities (A particular instance for an asset requiring action (intervention) is identified based on obtained data, see P55, 53-55, Fig. 9, Fig. 8, 76-77, 57, Pelski)
and executing the intervention to affect performance of the particular unit of the connected building equipment from the fleet of the connected building equipment (A particular work or order is an identified required action, with an implication the action is executed, see P55, 53-55, Fig. 9, Fig. 8, 76-77, 57, Pelski).
While Pelski implies executing an intervention to affect performance of a particular unit of equipment, Michals from the same or similar field of building automation, more explicitly teaches executing an intervention to affect performance of a particular unit of equipment (Execution of control to intervene in a faulty component, so as to affect its performance, for example to reduce waste, increase proper control response, increase longevity, shutdown to prevent further performance fault, etc., see p74, 87-89, Michals).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building device and data monitoring and control as described by Pelski and incorporating executing an intervention, as taught by Michals.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better implement an actual control that mitigates an undesired or faulty equipment state (see p74, 87-89, Michals).
Pelski does not explicitly teach identifying an intervention for a particular unit of a connected building equipment associated with a first entity a plurality of customer entities using a subset of performance data associated with a second entity of a plurality of customer entities;
However, Nakayama from the same or similar field of building management, teaches identifying an intervention for a particular unit of a connected building equipment associated with a first entity a plurality of customer entities using a subset of performance data associated with a second entity of a plurality of customer entities (An error for an equipment unit at a specific building facility entity, from among a plurality of facility entities, is identified that needs intervention, such as by stopping operation of the equipment, by using performance data (e.g. operating state data) that includes at least a portion of data from equipment of the same type located at a second building entity associated with a consumer (i.e. customer), see p80-81, p48-50, p32-33, p43, p53, p57, p97, p99, 79, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 9, Nakayama).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building device and data monitoring and control as described by the combination that includes Pelski and incorporating identification of an intervention for equipment at an entity using a subset of data from a second entity , as taught by Nakayama.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more accurately determine issues with equipment by consolidating and determining a baseline reference operation value for equipment based on averaged or statistically determined reference value from equipment of the same type operating at various entities under similar conditions (see p5, p63, p80-81, p48-50, p32-33, p43, p53, p57, p97, p99, 79, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 9, Nakayama).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches wherein a dashboard comprises a widget showing average performance index scores for subsets of a fleet of connected building equipment located in different regions (Score for overall site location region, see p81,Fig. 10, Pelski).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches wherein a dashboard comprises a widget showing different performance scores for a plurality of customer entities based on performance data and categorizations (Displaying, via interface, health values (scores) for a security type category of asset from received data, see p53, 56, Pelski).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches wherein a dashboard comprises selectable filters enabling a user to select a subset of categorizations, and wherein operations further comprise updating a dashboard to visualize only performance data associated with the subset of the categorizations (Filtering to specific desired data categories and displayed filtered results, p71, Fig. 7, Pelski).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches wherein operations further comprise hosting a webserver configured to make a dashboard available to user devices via Internet (Web interface/portal to client devices for dashboards, see 68-67, Fig. 3, Fig. 6, p56, p47, Pelsli).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches wherein performance data comprise a plurality of values of a connected equipment performance index (Values of assets that are indicative of performance, thus index, see p53, 56, Fig. 10, Pelski).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches wherein a plurality of customer entities are unrelated entities without direct data sharing therebetween and an intervention is identified using a subset of performance data associated with a second entity of the plurality of customer entities without sharing a portion of a performance data associated with second entity with a first entity (Buildings can be of unrelated entities, such as shopping mall, industrial park, school, or hospital, where data is used to determine required action for the monitored building entities with respective data of the assets of the building, see P37, 74, 54-55, 62, Pelski ).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches wherein executing an intervention comprises providing an updated control algorithm or updated configuration data to a particular unit of a connected building equipment and causing the particular unit of the connected building equipment to operate using the updated control algorithm or the updated configuration data (Control/configuration algorithm, such as in the form of firmware, can be updated for an asset determine to not be in compliance, therefore the asset uses the updated firmware, see P82, p3, 80, Pelski).
Claims 2, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelski, in view of Michals, in further view of Nakayama, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2018/0129191 to Rodriguez et al., (hereinafter Rodriguez)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski does not explicitly teach wherein a dashboard comprises a map view of performance data visualizing relative performance of a fleet of connected building equipment across geographic regions.
However, Rodriguez from the same or similar field of monitored facility equipment and dashboards, teaches wherein a dashboard comprises a map view of performance data visualizing relative performance of a fleet of connected building equipment across geographic regions (Map dashboard with geographically dispersed machine components with data of various facilities, see Fig. 5, p51, p50, Rodriguez).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building device and data monitoring and control as described by the combination that includes Pelski and incorporating a map dashboard of device information, as taught by Rodriguez.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better discern desired component metrics in context for comparison between machines geographically dispersed to determine similarities or differences (see p51, Fig. 5, p50, Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski does not explicitly teach wherein identifying an intervention comprises: comparing performance data associated with a particular unit of connected building equipment against performance data associated with one or more other units of a fleet of connected building equipment associated with a second entity of a plurality of customer entities; determining, based on the comparing, an action predicted to drive future performance data associated with a particular unit of connected building equipment toward performance data associated with one or more other units of a fleet of the connected building equipment; and identifying an action as an intervention.
However, Rodriguez from the same or similar field of monitored facility equipment and dashboards, teaches wherein identifying an intervention (Analysis to perform interventions such maintenance, performance improvement, etc., thus an intervention is identified, see p6, Rodriguez) comprises: comparing performance data associated with a particular unit of connected building equipment against performance data associated with one or more other units of a fleet of connected building equipment associated with a second entity of a plurality of customer entities (Machine device can be compared with devices at various facilities, see p51, p50, Rodriguez); determining, based on the comparing, an action predicted to drive future performance data associated with a particular unit of connected building equipment toward performance data associated with one or more other units of a fleet of the connected building equipment (Machine device analysis of collected data is used to identify actions to improve future performance, see p4, p51, p50, Rodriguez); and identifying an action as an intervention (Analysis to perform interventions such maintenance, performance improvement, etc., thus an intervention action is identified, see p4, p51, p50, Rodriguez).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building device and data monitoring and control as described by the combination that includes Pelski and incorporating comparison and action intervention identification, as taught by Rodriguez.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better discern desired component metrics in context for comparison between machines dispersed to determine similarities or differences, where the metrics can be used to determine how improvements can be made for performance (see p4, p51, Fig. 5, p50, Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski does not explicitly teach an energy meter configured to measure energy use of a particular unit of connected building equipment; and a gateway configured to transmit data from the energy meter to the one or more processors independent of a building management system.
However, Rodriguez from the same or similar field of monitored facility equipment and dashboards, teaches an energy meter configured to measure energy use of a particular unit of connected building equipment (Energy use obtained for a component, see p29, p31, 47, Rodriguez); and a gateway configured to transmit data from the energy meter to the one or more processors independent of a building management system (Gateway can be used in communications link that can be used in transmitting measurement information including energy use obtained for a component, see p31, p29, p4, 47, Rodriguez).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building device and data monitoring and control as described by the combination that includes Pelski and incorporating energy use and gateway for data transmission, as taught by Rodriguez.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better obtain a parameter of concern for a system that can be used to optimize the system, and to use a device that can route data from a network as interface to transfer to another (see p31, p29, 47, Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Pelski, Michals, Nakayama, and Rodriguez teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Rodriguez further teaches wherein a gateway communicates directly with an energy meter and comprises a cellular modem configured to communicate data from the energy meter to one or more processors (Gateway can be used in communications link that can be used in transmitting measurement information including obtained energy use through a telephony service, see p31, p29, p4, 47, Rodriguez).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building device and data monitoring and control as described by the combination that includes Pelski and incorporating gateway communication of data through cellular device, as taught by Rodriguez.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use a known communications network infrastructure and components that has the capability of transmitting desired obtained information to a desired lication (see p31, p29, 47, Rodriguez).
Claims 13, 15-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelski, in view of Michals.
Regarding claim 13, Pelski teaches a method comprising: obtaining performance data from a fleet of connected building equipment associated with a plurality of customer entities (Data (e.g. health, status, etc.) from communicatively networked assets (i.e. fleet of assets) of buildings at geographical locations for entities such as schools, hospitals, etc., is indicative of performance, see 62, 69, p4, p37,42, 76, 53, 51, 74, 41, Pelski); tagging the performance data with categorizations associating subsets of the performance data with different equipment models, different locations, and different entities of the plurality of customer entities (Device data indicative of performance (e.g. status, health, etc.,) is associated (tagged) with categories for different assets, locations, and entities (e.g., a specified building), see Fig. 9, Fig. 8, 76-77, 57, Pelski); generating, based on the categorizations, a dashboard comprising visualizations of the performance data (Visualization of asset data indicative of performance, see Fig. 9, Fig. 8, 76-77, 57, Pelski); identifying, using a subset of the performance data associated with multiple different entities of the plurality of customer entities, an intervention for a particular unit of the connected building equipment associated with an entity of the plurality of customer entities (A particular instance for an asset requiring action (intervention) is identified based on obtained data, see P55, 53-55, Fig. 9, Fig. 8, 76-77, 57, Pelski); and executing the intervention to affect performance of the particular unit of the connected building equipment from the fleet of connected building equipment (A particular work or order is an identified required action, with an implication the action is executed, see P55, 53-55, Fig. 9, Fig. 8, 76-77, 57, Pelski).
While Pelski implies executing an intervention to affect performance of a particular unit of equipment, Michals from the same or similar field of building automation, more explicitly teaches executing an intervention to affect performance of a particular unit of equipment (Execution of control to intervene in a faulty component, so as to affect its performance, for example to reduce waste, increase proper control response, increase longevity, shutdown to prevent further performance fault, etc., see p74, 87-89, Michals).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building device and data monitoring and control as described by Pelski and incorporating executing an intervention, as taught by Michals.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better implement an actual control that mitigates an undesired or faulty equipment state (see p74, 87-89, Michals).
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches wherein a fleet of connected building equipment comprises chillers (Chillers, see P41, Pelski).
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches wherein generating a dashboard is based on a script of performance inquiries such that the dashboard is configured to provide information enabling resolution of the performance inquiries in an order indicated by the script of the performance inquiries (Script used by system with dashboard providing user performance information, see p48, Pelski).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches generating an additional dashboard for an entity of a plurality of customer entities, the additional dashboard different than the dashboard (Dashboards for asset monitoring of building entities can be different from each other, see Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, Pelski).
Claims 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelski, in view of Michals, and in further view of Rodriguez.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelski, in view of Michals, in further view of Nakayama, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2019/0307084 to Ersavas et al., (hereinafter Ersavas)
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Pelski, Michals, and Nakayama teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Pelski further teaches wherein an additional dashboard comprises a recommendations widget comprising an indication of an intervention (Notification of action, such as out-of-date firmware/needed firmware upgrade has an implication of a recommendation, see Fig. 10, p80, 81, Pelski).
Pelski does not explicitly teach an accept button selectable by a user to authorize executing an intervention.
However, Ersavas from the same or similar field of control and dashboards, teaches an accept button selectable by a user to authorize executing an intervention (A user can accept a recommendation through interface, see p128, Ersavas).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building device and data monitoring and control as described by the combination that includes Pelski and incorporating acceptance of a recommendation, as taught by Ersavas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better determine verify a user’s approval of a recommendation that is not automatically implemented by providing a user with an interface for providing acceptance (see p128, Ersavas).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daikin, “Intelligent Equipment,” 2017, 6 pgs., teaches a monitoring and control of equipment that includes dashboard for monitoring equipment in different buildings in order to maintain peak operating efficiency. Also teaches features equipment performance metrics, benchmarking, and trend data over time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117